Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>> As I'm always for publishing WDs, I support these publications.
>>
>> However I would prefer to see the the various microdata vocabularies
>> removed from the microdata spec. However I don't care if this happens
>> before or after FPWD.
>
> Done.
Thanks.
Nits:
"The working groups maintains a list of all bug reports that the editor
has not yet tried to address and a list of issues for which the chairs
have not yet declared a decision. The editor also maintains a list of
all e-mails that he has not yet tried to address. These bugs, issues,
and e-mails apply to all HTML specifications, not just this one."
The first link
a list of all bug reports that the editor has not yet tried to address
produces zero results, so it appears something is wrong with the query part.
"These bugs, issues, and e-mails apply to all HTML specifications, not
just this one."
s/HTML specifications/specification/
unless we want to discuss what exactly an "HTML specification" is :-)
Also, if we include links to BugZilla queries in the first place, why
not make them specific to this draft?
Finally, more alignment with the sister specification (RDFa) would be
good. It currently has:
"The publication of this document by the W3C as a W3C Working Draft does
not imply endorsement by the W3C HTML Working Group or the W3C as a
whole. In particular,
* There are one or more alternate methods of adding data without
using RDFa, such as [microdata].
* There are discussions of alternate extensibility mechanisms,
covered in [issue-41], which might allow other ways of integrating RDFa.
* There is concern that continued development of this document
belongs in a different working group."
which I think is very helpful in understanding the status of these
documents.
Best regards, Julian